Lawsuits hurt consumers

The jury has reached a verdict in the mega-trial and circus known as the Apple vs. Samsung trial. If you've not been paying attention, Apple says that Samsung violated more patents with more devices and they should pay $2 billion in damages. Samsung feels differently, and says that Apple violated some of their patents and needs to pay. Google is saying this one is basically between Apple And Samsung, but they might kick in a few dollars to help if Samsung loses.

After deliberation, the jury finds:

  • Samsung is guilty of violating patent 5,946,647 (the autocorrect text entry patent) with all devices named in this suit.
  • Samsung was found not guilty of violating the 6.847.959 patent (Apple's Spotlight search).
  • Samsung was found not guilty of violating the 7,761,414 patent (data synchronization patent).
  • Samsung was found guilty of violating the 8,046,721 patent (slide-to-unlock) on some devices named, but not all.

The jury ruled that Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million in damages. Apple was found guilty of violating one of the two Samsung counterclaims, and were fined $158,400

It's nice to see the lawyers get richer, and it's always great when costly things like trials get added to the price of our devices.

Source: re/code


Reader comments

Verdict reached in Apple v. Samsung case, $120 million damages to Apple


Just to make one thing Jerry said very clear, Samsung's loss makes the next Galaxy device cost about $150 more.
Thanks Apple, you've made Samsung richer you idiots.
We're still going to buy Samsung over iPhones and you've made the next Galaxy S a premium device.

I got the $150 of the top of my head. I didn't actually state what Jerry said, just what I think Samsung will do.

First, Jerry did not say this would make the next Galaxy phone cost $150 more. And second, even if Samsung increased the price of their next phone to cover licensing fees for Apple's patented "features", that money would be paid to Apple, it wouldn't make Samsung richer.

You fail at logic.

Doesn't Samsung still make a lot parts for Apple? The last time Apple got a win against Samsung, Samsung raised the price of their parts on Apple.

This jury seemed to be more balanced than the one on the prior trial. Apple is only getting a fraction of what they wanted (but I'm sure Samsung will still fight it).

That fact that Apple considers these "key" patents is pretty stupid to begin with. I still want to see more courtroom discussion about the *validity* of these patents. The iPhone was not the first phone with slide to unlock. Neither was the iPhone the first phone to be able to turn phone numbers and addresses into "clickable" links in emails and text messages. And I'm not even going to start on how long Autocorrect has been around.

Although my comment will be biased, since I am an avid and loyal Android user; I think it's a bunch of crap that apple always feels they are owed money. Apple can eat a bowl of nuts!

I think I read that the nexus was one of the devices that infringed if true then maybe that's the reason why google will be footing some of the bill. I can't believe the jury ruled for the slide to unlock on some phones

Oh boy, Apple wins on "slide to unlock", even though Neonode patented it in 2002 and had phones on the market using it well before 2007.

I was about to post the same comment. The US patent system is such joke. You have to be a total retard to believe Apple has exclusive rights to "slide to unlock" when it was obviously in use long before the iPhone. If this case had been presented anywhere but America, it would have been tossed out before reaching a jury.

'Murica... The Land of Bribery and Hypocrisy. In Benjamin Franklin We Trust.

Samsung lawyers are even more of a joke, they can even win one? f apple f Google f both of them, apple for being such a patent troll and Google for not having the balls to sue apple for the drop down notification and more, that's it.

Google ans Samsung are two different entities. I don't believe Google can enter the fray unless they are joined in the civil action. Google releases the basic operating system, and then the mobile owners make their little adjustments. Thats why Apple isn't going after other mobile companies, they just go for Samsung as they see them as their greatest threat.

This behaviour from Apple is one reason it will be a cold day before I purchase one of their smart phone

I'm hoping Google pulls out all the stops when Rockstar consortium case goes to trial against Google and they'll pull out of their hat all the infringements all these other companies have made with out a peep out of Google.

I think we should be hearing some preliminary stuff soon for the opening of the case to see if it goes to trial.

Here is a link to the freely available open source code for the Android notification system.

Not really something you would sue someone else for implementing ...

Correct me if I'm wrong Jerry, but I believe I remember reading a while back that Google did have a patent for the notification shade pending with the USPTO?

EDIT: Not that I'm advocating them suing over it, because I still think software patents are stupid.

The evidence for Meucci is weak, if not non-existent. He certainly did some experiements, but he was unable to back up his claims in court.

"Meucci's evidence in this case was disputed due to a lack of material evidence for his inventions as his working models were purportedly lost at the laboratory of American District Telegraph (ADT) of New York, which was later incorporated as a subsidiary of Western Union in 1901. Meucci's work, like many other inventors of the period, was based on earlier acoustic principles and despite evidence of earlier experiments, the final case involving Meucci was eventually dropped upon Meucci's death. However, due to the efforts of Congressman Vito Fossella, the U.S. House of Representatives on June 11, 2002 stated that Meucci's "work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged", even though this did not put an end to a still contentious issue. Some modern scholars do not agree with the claims that Bell's work on the telephone was influenced by Meucci's inventions."

or Innocenzo Manzetti
or Charles Grafton
or Johann Philipp Reis
or Charles Bourseul
all had a hand in the telephone.... everyone only remembers Bell because of "ma bell"

Nice fail Gator. Bell got the patent but he was not the guy who invented it

Posted via Android Central App

Says who? A couple of articles? Bullshit....he was working on it at the same time as the others. So it wasn't like he was a "patent troll". So no. It's not a fail.

It isn't just a couple of articles, it is historical fact that Bell was not the first. He is sorta like apple. He didn't do it first, he didn't do it the best, but he is the one who gets the credit.

And while he was not really a patent troll, he was a bit of a snot about it

Posted via Android Central App

"Meucci's evidence in this case was disputed due to a lack of material evidence for his inventions as his working models were purportedly lost at the laboratory of American District Telegraph (ADT) of New York, which was later incorporated as a subsidiary of Western Union in 1901. Meucci's work, like many other inventors of the period, was based on earlier acoustic principles and despite evidence of earlier experiments, the final case involving Meucci was eventually dropped upon Meucci's death. However, due to the efforts of Congressman Vito Fossella, the U.S. House of Representatives on June 11, 2002 stated that Meucci's "work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged", even though this did not put an end to a still contentious issue. Some modern scholars do not agree with the claims that Bell's work on the telephone was influenced by Meucci's inventions."

Neonode didn't patent it. Also, the claims made in patents actually matter. That is why the slide to unlock patent is valid.

Reading comprehension is your friend. What neonode describes is completely different than what apple has a patent for. Two patents that may sound similar but actually are very, very different. As I said, the claims made in each patent matter, and that's why what neonode has is irrelevant.

Ubuntu also had an app store before Apple.
Andy Rubin had a vision for a central app store for Android, before he knew of the iPhone. Remember, Steve Jobs was completely against third party apps and an app store, but gave in from market pressure. Andy Rubin on the other hand, had the vision of Android all laid out before any iPhones or Android phones were on the market. Application store, multitasking, cloud activation (no computer required-people thought he was crazy!), any screen size support, etc. Apple has had to make major painful changes to adapt to these, rather than starting that way from day 1.

If not for Android, the iPhone would likely still have a 3.5" screen. And it's going to be *painful* for the app developers of Apple goes to a 4.7" and 5.5" screen this year as has been rumored. Either, the dev's will have to make separate versions of the app for each screen size, or Apple will have to rewrite how iOS handles rendering the UI. Either way means lots of broken apps and work for dev's.

as much as we all know that most of Apples patents are stolen ideas, sadly the Neonide wasn't available in the USA and this is what makes the difference.

I still don't understand how slide to unlock is patentable. Some doors have had this 'feature' since before computers. It's not novel or non-obvious just because it's on a computer (phone) screen!!!

That's not how it works in US, if it is different in its implementation, it can be patented. It sucks but that's just the way of life in US.

You cannot patent an idea but you can patent its implementation if it is different from others.

Patents are not about ideas, it's about the implementations.

Since I live in US only, unlike many Americans, I don't assume the laws here work the same elsewhere. :) So, I just keep it isolated to US only until I can do more research.

I believe IIRC, Europe has more technical requirements for the patents, so that is mainly why Apple patents keep getting invalid in there, too simplistic and/or broad. Simple/Broad patents won't work in EU when it works in US. But again, I may be wrong here as I haven't read the EU laws.

I know how they work. They don't! They sit around on their asses collecting food stamps, welfare, unemployment, and section 8 until some unsuspecting fool invents something of use then they go to work for a patent troll.

Neonode N1m is the first terminal with a generic positive gesture (slide left to right) and negative gesture (slide right to left) were used consistently through the interface to unlock, go back to home screen, etc. In other terms Slide to Unlock and Swype commands. Used by Apple, Nokia, Samsung, LG, etc...

Yes, Apple has the slide to unlock patent, and as we all know, patents are NEVER given for things that existed before a patent is filed...smdhatfi

Your logic is flawed. I suppose to you a machine that crushes rocks is not the same as a device that breaks apart boulders, simply because the wording is different.

No. Neonode did not have the graphical representation on screen that showed the unlock. That is one of the key differences and why Apple was granted their patent.

Apple was granted the patent because of an envelope filled with green handed to a patent office employee......

I don't rail on you like I should mostly because you usually very smart with your comments. In this thread your tinfoil hat is showing.

Posted via Android Central App

I'm sure they don't except the "green" as payment for services rendered. But Starbucks gift cards are another story....

So none of the Neonode examples would have qualified as prior art? I know that doesn't mean you can't argue around them, but were they cited by reviewers at all?

Posted via Android Central App

No they were not prior art. Samsung used them, I believe, and in every case where that was brought up samsung has lost.

Except in Germany and Dutch, they were used as prior art to kill the patents.

In EU, the patents have more technical requirements and Neonode was enough.

In US, it is less strict and Neonode was not enough to beat the prior art requirement. You have to have a graphical image on the screen to drag across to beat Apple's patent. Neonode didn't have that.

At least Apple only got a fraction of what they were asking for. A small victory for us all

Posted via Android Central App

I'm actually very surprised by the verdict given the location of the court... I think this is a big win for Sammy and Google both. But let's not kid ourselves this trial and others will not stop until every appeal and court has been exhausted.

Posted via Android Central App

Nobody wins until Google/Sammy and Apple signs a cross-license agreement that's reasonable. Apple's the sore loser here who needs to get out of its reality distortion field and realize they're never going to get $40 per unit. Simple as that.

That's never going to happen.

There is no benefit for Apple if they cross-license their IP to their competitor, who also has triple their market-share.

Google would rather see ideological software patents go away. Having huge, money and time wasting trials will help push this agenda forward. With less software patents, more people can make gadgets that use the Internet, and Google can provide more services that bolster their main revenue stream — highly targeted and effective advertisements.

Jerry, it will. Apple already has the same agreements with Microsoft and HTC. If you go back in time during the 80/90s, Microsoft was doing to Apple what Google/Samsung is doing to Apple now. There were huge trials back then until eventually, agreements were made.

Samsung and Google is holding out because of the insanely high royalties that Apple is demanding and also because Apple is insistent on the "anti-cloning" clause. I agree on the latter, I just don't agree with the former. Remember Apple is in this not for the money but mainly to stop the blanket copying (the silly thermonuclear war comment was just silly, not a goal for Apple to end Android completely, it is never going to happen). An anti-cloning clause will help with Apple's end goal to prevent companies from cloning exactly what Apple is doing.

In addition, ideological software patents are never going to go away until the US Congress gives up its lobby money. IBM does not want those patents to go away and they have a massive presence in the Congress, so it's not going to happen unless IBM gives up on this.

Lime Jerry said, hardware is not software and Apple will never license the software

Posted via Android Central App

Did you read the links? Because both links specifically say software patents. It barely has anything to do with hardware.

Microsoft is not a hardware vendor, they're a software company first with a few side businesses.

HTC Agreement: "With the cross-licensing deal, HTC will now be allowed to use the following technologies and UI elements on smartphones during the term, among others:

Slide to unlock
Universal search
Bounce scrolling
Scroll locking"

These are software patents.

License agreements with hardware vendors is not the same thing as licensing software to be bundled in a free open-source operating system that has 80+% of the world market. Apple will never give Google a thing. It's against their best interests, and the shareholders would have a fit (rightfully so) if they "gave away*" valuable (in their opinion) IP. This is why bounce-scrolling was removed from Android, instead of licensed in like it is with HTC Sense 5+

  • I don't consider using open-source software as just giving away something valuable. But many people — including shareholders — probably would.

sorry but Apple is in this for the money. The $2 billion dollar sought highlights it perfectly. Apple are the ones now having a 'Design Crisis' period simply because they have sat around spewing out very similar devices for the past 4 years getting fat, greedy and lazy.

Apple isn't in this trials crap for money. Apple will burn that much money through trials, they've already burnt through a couple of hundreds of millions of dollars from the first few years on legal costs. $2 billion is nothing but a chump to Apple, that's like a week worth of revenue if not a day. It's the stupidest thing to do, they'll lose money and look like fools in the end as trials all over the world declare their patents invalid or simply not worth that much money.

Majority of Apple's IPs can be worked around, they're mostly software based and Apple already lost several trials on those patents outside US. There's nothing Apple can do to prevent folks from working around their designs. However, the only option Apple have is to prevent others from cloning their designs, which is what the cross-patent agreements provides. Apple've done it in the past, and I've provided the evidence, Microsoft, the most famous one.

In order to be a "clone" of what Apple is doing, the devices would have to be indistinguishable, and that's not even remotely happening *now*.

And that 120 million? 60 million is going towards the iPad payment they had to make in China, because a Chinese corporation trademarked iPad before apple. And the other 60 million will most probably go to lGB in Brazil to buy out their trademark on the name iPhone, which Brazilian lGB trademarked back in 2000, years before apple even thought of the word iPhone.
In the immortal words of Ralph Kramden... "I make it, and I spend it. Easy come, easy go!"
Posted via Android Central App

Boo hop, apples evil. Blah-blah. Seriously guys, why do you care? If Samsung were found guilty, they were found guilty. If Apple had legit patents, they had legit patents. I think Samsung can afford 120 million dollars . I'm not going to cry for multibillion dollar companies.

Nobody has time for rational thoughts here, buddy. Why don't you just take your sensible thought processes over to CNET.....we're having a fanboi massacre here dammit!

Posted via Android Central best phone available: moto x

Exactly. Who cares, honestly. This isn't apple shaking anyone down or whatever. These are businesses goosing each other for money.

BYW: It's hard to argue that samsung and android DIDNT copy the iPhone a lot.

Slide to unlock, spotlight search, home screen lay out, things like that. And don't worry, apple copies too. So does sony, so does LG, so does Microsoft, want me to keep going?

Nope. I'd rather you get a good nights sleep... Honestly think you are in the wrong forum thread my friend. Better to keep to Apple forums. No need to come here and argue with people who out the box disagree.

Posted via Android Central App

Well, you're wrong and he's right. Even Android's engineers admit they completely revamped Android after the iPhone announcement because they were scared shitless by it.

But that doesn't mean they copied. They said "revamped" not "copied". Yes, they ALL copy in some fashion but tell me how in the world is the home screen on an Android device is the same as an iOS device. Not. Even. Close.

And don't even confuse a home screen with the app drawer...two separate entities.

Ah yes. So actively trying to compete against Apple=plagiarism. I swear dude, with the amount of time you spend (and god, it's got to be dozens, maybe hundred of hours over the last couple years) desperately defending Apple's virtue on the interwebs, I honestly hope you have some kind of vested interest. Like it would be nice to think you're an Apple patent lawyer, or the Ghost of Steve Jobs of something.

I'm sure the reality is much more depressing.

When you own the market. Like Apple did. This is a turf war - an all out money grab. Nothing more or less. Steve Jobs made it sound personal, but it wasn't. He was a ruthless businessman, and they're after cash. Nothing more or less.

Personally, I don't think a number of the patents they're fighting over should have been granted, and Apple should focus on their declining sales and loss of market share. But hey, without the iPhone there would be no HTC there's that.

You're a complete moron. So apple never copied anything android did? Please if you're going to make a debate at least know wth you're talking about. Lol

Hey moron he never said apple never copied andriod. Apple patented slide to unlock legally get over it moron
Posted via Android Central App

Lmao the anger is strong here. I know its that time of the month for you. Get your tampons and you'll be OK.........moron.

You are the bitch that called him a moron first what cant handle being called the same bitch

Posted via Android Central App

If you were to put ten idiots in a room and ask them for ways to unlock their phones, do you honestly think those ten idiots wouldn't come to some sort of that conclusion? That's not something that deserves a patent...

Posted via Android Central App

When it was announced it was unique. Most (read: all except for a handful) used physical buttons to unlock their touchscreens before the iPhone.

Many feature phones and some early smart phones were called "sliders" because they literally slid open to unlock them. Please stop acting like Apple programming that into a touch screen was somehow "inventive". I'm a software developer for a living. That's probably literally like 10 lines of code.

I never said apple didn't copy android. Or did you miss the part where I said that everybody copies everybody?

I had a samsung tablet a few years ago and the charger was identical to my iphone charger but only black. At night in the dark it was a pain in the ass.
Posted via Android Central App

Really all you do is go to just about every post and search out comments to bait we all now how you are you can lie and play like your doing nothing but enough people see it and commented on it your just a person that adds nothing so keep thinking your funny. No one cares

Posted via Android Central App

So the charger for your Galaxy tab was "exactly" like Apple's except for the color? If the color was different, then how is it "exactly" like the other? Besides, my Adata SD card is exactly like my Patriot SD card. My Seagate 2 TB HDD looks exactly like my Western Digital 1 TB HDD......the world is coming to an end....

That's what I was trying to get him to say. It's funny Apple doesn't own the technology for the 30 pin charger style on the old idevices. Samsung had every right to buy it and use it on their devices.


First off, I loved that little interchange up there, Joe.

Secondly, ridgeline, if they were "exactly the same" then it wouldn't have mattered which one you grabbed in the dark, right? Because they both would have worked if they were exactly to the same. Right?

Is your argument that no other company is ever allowed to make a plug that uses more than 4 pins? Because they've been around a *lot* longer than the iPhone.

Not to intervene, but why are you in AndroidCentral comments? My question is because you seem to only want to incite hate; why not focus your energy in more productive forums that cater to your Apple interests....
Posted via Android Central App

You can't argue that at all. When the iPhone was introduced, Google had a Blackberry-esque phone about ready to release. But when they saw the iPhone, they dropped that phone and came out with an iPhone clone. Then later, Samesung blatantly copied Apple, and that is what put them on the smartphone map. And the tablet map.

Calm down: when did the parent Android-Google get sued... There's a very strategic reason Sammy is under the microscope... They sell phones! Who cares, rock the phone you like and quit the "my OS vs his OS". The end point of all our love of tech is that to each his own... Come on man, no need to act like this. I'm just saying let's be bigger than this.

Posted via Android Central App

Why? Your gloat should be over at the iMore site. Besides......if you haven't heard, the iTerd is designed in America....but MADE IN CHINA!

So go ahead and start chanting....CHINA! CHINA! CHINA!

Sucks that Samsung lost. But 120 million is pocket change to Samsung.

Posted via Android Central App

Next year they will sue Samsung for making big phones with a screen size greater than 5 inches.

Now Apple us going to make larger phones, does Samsung have a patent on that?

Posted from my Beastly Note 3 via Android Central App

Of coarse not. But if Apple can sue for "rectangular shaped phones with rounded corners", then Apple will try to sue for anything....including pooping into a toilet that has a rounded toilet lid.....

I hope Samsung just pays and moves on with it.
Seems to me like assuming they did infringe on those patents, this verdict comes to less than a dollar per device... not that bad..

this needs to be set in a court outside of intrests see who whould win then and see if it would evern bother to try.

I just don't consider attacking someone to the point that some of these people do, just for their beliefs and opinions. Some of these people go way past the point of a discussion or debate. They go onto a personal attack and they don't even know the person. Sure I hate Apple as much as the next guy and I gladly debate Android over iOS. I never attack anyone the way these people do tho. My debates deal with facts and knowledge, not hatred. .

I think both companies should pick 50 of their most rabid fans and have them rumble "Westside Story Style" in a empty parking lot. Winner takes all!

Flaming post about complicated antiquated patent lead I don't understand other than what I've read in internet articles from columnists who also don't fully understand. F everybody involved and anyone who comments because I suddenly became a technology expert/lawyer and am fully versed in all aspects of this story.

Posted via Android Central App

Are you saying that you want to F me? You better be a good looking chick not willing to have a relationship or use the "love" word.

Didn't you say with up thread or in another that you didn't have a wife?

Posted via Android Central App

I don't think I've ever stated whether I actually did or didn't. Heck I don't remember. But yes, I am married.

"The jury ruled that Samsung owes Apple $119.6 million in damages. Apple was found guilty of violating one of the two Samsung counterclaims, and were fined $158,400."

So they each won on one patent claim, and the difference is $119+ million?!
How does Apple's d!ck taste, extremely partisan jury?

American company (Apple) sue South Korean company (Samsung) in American court. Go figure :-(

Based on the comments, I imagine the average age here is about 12 years old. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Wow, 199 comments? I heard Samsung said... We got 199 problems but a biatch ain't one!

Posted via Android Central App

Here's an idea. How about these giant corporations be made to pay fair taxes before they received services from the government that they leech off of. No patent protection, no court services, etc... Until they stop hiding billions in revenue through creative accounting and offshore companies.
Posted via Android Central App